Dangers of “Crying It Out”

Letting babies "cry it out" is an idea that has been around since at least the 1880s when the field of medicine was in a hullaballoo about germs and transmitting infection and so took to the notion that babies should rarely be touched (see Blum, 2002, for a great review of this time period and attitudes towards childrearing).

In the 20th century, behaviorist John Watson (1928), interested in making psychology a hard science, took up the crusade against affection as president of the American Psychological Association. He applied the mechanistic paradigm of behaviorism to child rearing, warning about the dangers of too much mother love. The 20th century was the time when "men of science" were assumed to know better than mothers, grandmothers and families about how to raise a child. Too much kindness to a baby would result in a whiney, dependent, failed human being. Funny how "the experts" got away with this with no evidence to back it up! Instead there is evidence all around (then and now) showing the opposite to be true!

A government pamphlet from the time recommended that "mothering meant holding the baby quietly, in tranquility-inducing positions" and that "the mother should stop immediately if her arms feel tired" because "the baby is never to inconvenience the adult." A baby older than six months "should be taught to sit silently in the crib; otherwise, he might need to be constantly watched and entertained by the mother, a serious waste of time." (See Blum, 2002.)

Don't these attitudes sound familiar? A parent reported to me recently that he was encouraged to let his baby cry herself to sleep so he "could get his life back."

[Note: In other posts on infant sleep listed below, my co-authors and I point out flaws in studies of sleep training. Here is another example. Check out this article and its table that lists the studies reviewed. The table shows that every study is flawed--either the intervention was not followed (fidelity) and/or only parent reports were used, not observation. Moreover, the age range of the children varied. Most importantly, note that most studies did not measure child wellbeing. So there is no responsible way to draw generalizable conclusions from this set of flawed studies. The standards for publishing such studies appears to be very low. In a forthcoming post, we note how many studies use an "Intent to Treat" criterion for distinguishing conditions, not bothering about what actually happened.]

With neuroscience, we can confirm what our ancestors took for granted---that letting babies get distressed is a practice that can damage children and their relational capacities in many ways for the long term. We know now that leaving babies to cry is a good way to make a less intelligent, less healthy but more anxious, uncooperative and alienated persons who can pass the same or worse traits on to the next generation.

The discredited behaviorist view sees the baby as an interloper into the life of the parents, an intrusion who must be controlled by various means so the adults can live their lives without too much bother. Perhaps we can excuse this attitude and ignorance because at the time, extended families were being broken up and new parents had to figure out how to deal with babies on their own, an unnatural condition for humanity--we have heretofore raised children in extended families. The parents always shared care with multiple adult relatives.

According to a behaviorist view completely ignorant of human development, the child 'has to be taught to be independent.' We can confirm now that forcing "independence" on a baby leads to greater dependence. Instead, giving babies what they need leads to greater independence later. In anthropological reports of small-band hunter-gatherers, parents took care of every need of babies and young children. Toddlers felt confident enough (and so did their parents) to walk into the bush on their own (see Hunter-Gatherer Childhoods, edited by Hewlett & Lamb, 2005).

Ignorant behaviorists then and now encourage parents to condition the baby to expect needs NOT to be met on demand, whether feeding or comforting. It's assumed that the adults should 'be in charge' of the relationship. Certainly this might foster a child that doesn't ask for as much help and attention (potentially withdrawing into depression and going into stasis or even wasting away) but it is more likely to foster a whiney, unhappy, aggressive and/or demanding child, one who has learned that one must scream to get needs met. A deep sense of insecurity is likely to stay with them the rest of life.

The fact is that caregivers who habitually respond to the needs of the baby before the baby gets distressed, preventing crying, are more likely to have children who are independent than the opposite (e.g., Stein & Newcomb, 1994). Soothing care is best from the outset. Once patterns of distress get established, it's much harder to change them.

Rats are often used to study how mammalian brains work and many effects are similar in human brains. In studies of rats with high or low nurturing mothers, there is a critical period for turning on genes that control anxiety for the rest of life. If in the first 10 days of life you have a low nurturing rat mother (the equivalent of the first 6 months of life in a human), the gene never gets turned on and the rat is anxious towards new situations for the rest of its life, unless drugs are administered to alleviate the anxiety. These researchers say that there are hundreds of genes affected by nurturance. Similar mechanisms are found in human brains--caregiver behavior matters for turning genes on and off. (See work of Michael Meaney and colleagues; e. g., Meaney, 2001).

We should understand the mother and child as a mutually responsive dyad. They are a symbiotic unit that make each other healthier and happier in mutual responsiveness. This expands to other caregivers too.

One strangely popular notion still around today is to let babies 'cry it out' (aka total extinction or unmodified extinction) when they are left alone, isolated in cribs or in other devices. This comes from a misunderstanding of child brain development.

Babies grow from being held. Their bodies get dysregulated when they are physically separated from caregivers. (See here for more.)

Babies indicate a need through gesture and eventually, if necessary, through crying. Just as adults reach for liquid when thirsty, children search for what they need in the moment. Just as adults become calm once the need is met, so do babies.

Neuronal interconnections are damaged. When the baby is greatly distressed,it creates conditions for damge to synapses, the network construction which is ongoing in the infant brain. The hormone cortisol is released. In excess, it's a neuron killer but its consequences many not be apparent immediately (Thomas et al. 2007). A full-term baby (40-42 weeks), with only 25% of its brain developed, is undergoing rapid brain growth. The brain grows on average three times as large by the end of the first year (and head size growth in the first year is a sign of intelligence, e.g., Gale et al., 2006). Who knows what neurons are not being connected or being wiped out during times of extreme stress? What deficits might show up years later from such regular distressful experience? (See my addendum below.)

Disordered stress reactivity can be established as a pattern for life not only in the brain with the stress response system (Bremmer et al, 1998), but also in the body through the vagus nerve, a nerve that affects functioning in multiple systems (e.g., digestion). For example, prolonged distress in early life, lack of responsive parenting, can result in a poorly functioning vagus nerve, which is related to various disorders as irritable bowel syndrome (Stam et al, 1997). See more about how early stress is toxic for lifelong health from the recent Harvard report, The Foundations of Lifelong Health are Built in Early Childhood).

Self-regulation is undermined. The baby is absolutely dependent on caregivers for learning how to self-regulate. Responsive care---meeting the baby's needs before he gets distressed---tunes the body and brain up for calmness. When a baby gets scared and a parent holds and comforts him, the baby builds expectations for soothing, which get integrated into the ability to self comfort. Babies don't self-comfort in isolation. If they are left to cry alone, they learn to shut down in face of extensive distress--stop growing, stop feeling, stop trusting (Henry & Wang, 1998).

Trust is undermined. As Erik Erikson pointed out, the first year of life is a sensitive period for establishing a sense of trust in the world, the world of caregiver and the world of self. When a baby's needs are met without distress, the child learns that the world is a trustworthy place, that relationships are supportive, and that the self is a positive entity that can get its needs met. When a baby's needs are dismissed or ignored, the child develops a sense of mistrust of relationships and the world. And self-confidence is undermined. The child may spend a lifetime trying to fill the resulting inner emptiness.

Caregiver sensitivity may be harmed. A caregiver who learns to ignore baby crying, will likely learn to ignore the more subtle signaling of the child's needs. Second-guessing intuitions that guide one to want to stop child distress, the adult who learns to ignores baby needs practices and increasingly learns to "harden the heart." The reciprocity between caregiver and baby is broken by the adult, but cannot be repaired by the young child. The baby is helpless.

Caregiver responsivenessto the needs of the baby is related to most if not all positive child outcomes. In our work caregiver responsiveness is related to intelligence, empathy, lack of aggression or depression, self-regulation, social competence. Because responsiveness is so powerful, we have to control for it in our studies of other parenting practices and child outcomes. The importance of caregiver responsiveness is common knowledge in developmental psychology. Lack of responsiveness, which "crying it out" represents can result in the opposite of the aforementioned positive outcomes.

The 'cry it out' approach seems to have arisen as a solution to the dissolution of extended family life in the 20th century. The vast knowledge of (now great great) grandmothers was lost in the distance between households with children and those with the experience and expertise about how to raise them well. The wisdom of keeping babies happy was lost between generations.

But isn't it normal for babies to cry?

No. A crying baby in our ancestral environment would have signaled predators to tasty morsels. So our evolved parenting practices alleviated baby distress and precluded crying except in emergencies. Babies are built to expect the equivalent of an "external womb" after birth (see Allan Schore, specific references below). What is the external womb? ---being held constantly, breastfed on demand, needs met quickly (I have numerous posts on these things). These practices are known to facilitate good brain and body development (discussed with references in other posts, some links below). When babies display discomfort, it signals that a need is not getting met, a need of their rapidly growing systems.

What does extensive baby crying signal? It shows the lack of experience, knowledge and/or support of the baby's caregivers. To remedy a lack of information in us all, below is a good set of articles about all the things that a baby's cry can signal. We can all educate ourselves about what babies need and the practices that alleviate baby crying. We can help one another to keep crying from happening as much as possible.

Science of Parenting, an inexpensive, photo-filled, easy-to-read book for parents by Margot Sunderland, has much more detail and references on these matters. I keep copies on hand to give to new parents.

Giving babies what they need is really a basic right of babies. See here for more rights I think babies should expect. And see here for a new book by Eileen Johnson on the emotional rights of babies.

ADDENDUM: I was raised in a middle-class family with a depressed mother, harsh father and overall emotionally unsupportive environment--not unlike others raised in the USA. I have only recently realized from extensive reading about the effects of early parenting on body and brain development that I show the signs of undercare--poor memory (cortisol released during distress harms hippocampus development), irritable bowel and other poor vagal tone issues, and high social anxiety. The USA has epidemics of poor physical and mental health (e.g., UNICEF, 2007; USDHSS, 1999; WHO/WONCA, 2008). The connection between the lack of ancestral parenting practices and poor health outcomes has been documented for touch, responsiveness, breastfeeding, and more (Narvaez et al., in press). If we want a strong country and people, we've got to pay attention to what children need for optimal development.

When I write about human nature, I use the 99% of human genus history as a baseline. That is the context of small-band hunter-gatherers. These are “immediate-return” societies with few possessions who migrate and forage. They have no hierarchy or coercion and value generosity and sharing. They exhibit both high autonomy and high commitment to the group. They have high social wellbeing. See comparison between dominant Western culture and this evolved heritage in my article (you can download from my website):

Narvaez, D. (2013). The 99 Percent—Development and socialization within an evolutionary context: Growing up to become “A good and useful human being.” In D. Fry (Ed.), War, Peace and Human Nature: The convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views (pp. 643-672). New York: Oxford University Press.

When I write about parenting, I assume the importance of the evolved developmental niche (EDN) for raising human infants (which initially arose over 30 million years ago with the emergence of the social mammals and has been slightly altered among human groups based on anthropological research).

The EDN is the baseline I use for determining what fosters optimal human health, wellbeing and compassionate morality. The niche includes at least the following: infant-initiated breastfeeding for several years, nearly constant touch early, responsiveness to needs so the young child does not get distressed, playful companionship with multi-aged playmates, multiple adult caregivers, positive social support, and soothing perinatal experiences.

All EDN characteristics are linked to health in mammalian and human studies (for reviews, see Narvaez, Panksepp, Schore & Gleason, 2013; Narvaez, Valentino, Fuentes, McKenna & Gray, 2014; Narvaez, 2014) Thus, shifts away from the EDN baseline are risky and must be supported with longitudinal data looking at wellbeing in children and adults. My comments and posts stem from these basic assumptions.

My research laboratory has documented the importance of the EDN for child wellbeing and moral development with more papers in the works see (my Website to download papers):

UNICEF (2007). Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries, a comprehensive assessment of the lives and well-being of children and adolescents in the economically advanced nations, Report Card 7. Florence, Italy: United Nations Children's Fund Innocenti Research Centre.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (1999). Mental health: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: Center for Mental Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health.

meeting a baby's need to be fed becuase it is hungry or comforting it when it is distressed is fine in my book... but when a two year old pitches a fit at nap or bed time and crys till mommy or daddy come to check on them, then settles down but refuses to fall asleep, followed by wailing as soon as the parent leaves the room... now that calls for some "letting them cry it out".

You're so right. I make sure that all of their needs are met. They are fed, dry, and have had plenty of holding and interaction. But when a baby cries when you are holding him and everything else is okay, it's all right to set the baby down for a few minutes. I also agree with your treatment of the two year old - you are training the baby to know what behavior is acceptable, and that is good parenting.

That's not good parenting. The child obviously needs something, even if it is just closeness. We are not to 'TRAIN' our children. When they learn that you will answer their cries they will not need to 'wail' to get your attention.

That's not good parenting. The child obviously needs something, even if it is just closeness. We are not to 'TRAIN' our children. When they learn that you will answer their cries they will not need to 'wail' to get your attention.

We are not to train our children?!?!?!
train/trān/
Verb:
Teach (a person or animal) a particular skill or type of behavior through practice and instruction over a period of time.
Who will train our children if we don't? A child is supposed to have a pretty much set personality by age 5, long before the enter school. So who is teaching your child to communicate their needs in a manner than is acceptable for life? If my 10 year old sat screaming in the grocery store because they want something, it's because I taught them that is the way to get what they need. Instead, I choose to teach my children sign language. My 6 month old was perfectly capable of telling me "eat," "water," "potty," "Mommy," "Daddy," and "tired." Guess what? She's not a screamer. She gets plenty of love and affection. I've actually had people tell me that a baby who smiles like mine does when she gets kisses obviously gets them a LOT. This article is inflammatory, one sided, and off the wall. Every child has different needs, but to say that running at every small whimper is the answer to everything is simple foolishness. First of all, I have another child I have to give attention to, a house to clean, meals to cook, laundry to do, and errands to run. I literally can not spend all day holding a baby. And no, I can't carry her because I'm pregnant with my third and she's over my weight limit. I don't believe in letting a child scream themselves to sleep, but I also don't believe in running at every tiny sound.

I think your arguement is also one sided. But this is not attacking your personal parenting style, and you obviously love your kids. I did the attachment parenting with my 5 yr old and it worked out fine but with my 20 month old I've had to be a bit more inventive and life for her maybes hasn't been a serene.

Boy, you're in for rough waters down the line. Sometimes kids cry simply because they're not getting their way and there's nothing wrong with saying no and standing by it. Let them do what they want & eventually a policeman will step in & the scene will be much uglier than if you had simply taught them boundaries.

...that there should be no boundaries set for a *child*. It's about not purposefully neglecting a *baby* in a misguided attempt to condition them for independence later in their life, since they're really vulnerable to psychological trauma. If a kid of, say, 4-7 years old cries because of a toy he/she is not getting, he/she can get over it.

My first wanted to be held 24/7 and it was exhausting, but I tried to hold him as much as possible. The second also cried a lot, but he would stop the moment I put him down. Complete opposites. He was not a cuddly baby, but is a very well-adjusted young adult. The oldest has a lot of problems even though he had a ton of attention. All you can do is follow your instincts and do your best.

My children are always polite in public (and at home). Rudeness is not acceptable. They have good hygiene, as poor hygiene is not acceptable. Other unacceptable things: bad table manners, saying curse words, eating marshmallows for dinner. Those are things I have taught them, because they are important.

My daughter was always very independent and slept on her own with no problems. My son just started going to sleep alone, and he is 5. He's always been a snuggler and needed and enjoyed physical closeness. It's how our brains are hardwired. How is that unacceptable?

I often wonder what would happen to the animal kingdom is babies were treated like human babies are. It's unfortunate that we ignore the natural instincts and needs of our children.

Umm just to reply about your comment regarding nature and animals raising their young, Is that really a good comparison? Some animals eat their young.. You may want to watch more of the discovery channel.

I was thinking the same thing! If the article is to compare and test rats to human babies then I wouldn't see a problem bringing in the fact how animals treat their young and compare! On a side note I think this article is ridiculous and incorrect on so many levels!

I would be shocked if this woman actually has kids. It is completely normal for babies to cry! My God if my baby never cried then I would think something was wrong. I can't believe how unfounded this article is. Of course our babies should be nurtured and attended to but to think we could leap to their every need like mind reading servants before they had time to fuss and cry is simply impossible. We do our best and some babies need lots of cuddles and soothing and others don't. Some turn out to be anxious as adolescents and strong adults and some the reverse. But how much crying we evade for them in infancy really seems to have nothing to do with it so long as we are providing the best environment and most love we can for them. We are people to and we don't stop having needs to sleep and eat and have relations with our peers either!

They are references. To scientific studies. This is not one person's opinion, this is fact based on scientific research. Justify CIO-methods all you like by questioning the parental status of the author, but facts are facts.

A name and date in brackets is not a compelling argument. (Me, 2012) The references are unquoted and out of context and don't always apply to the point of the article. A study that shows that extreme neglect (like leaving babies alone for 10 hours) raises cortisol levels and can, over a prolonged period of time, result in neurological damage does *not* support the assertion that letting a baby raised in a loving home cry it out for 20 minutes will cause brain damage. This is HORRIBLE pop science reporting and would never be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

This article (with all of it's typos and grammatical flaws) is obviously biased, as becomes more obvious given the personal experiences of the author and the conclusions she has drawn from how she was raised and who she has become as an adult. We simply do not have enough evidence for what a short-lived CIO approach will do in the longterm to the human brain. I researched this topic when my first daughter was 12 months and decided to try it. I went in every 5 minutes, then 10 minutes and she was asleep by 45minutes. Although that was the longest 45 minutes of my life, she slept more soundly afterwards and I was able to mostly abandon CIO WITHOUT losing my sensitivity to being able to respond to her needs. All of that said, I do believe that we are raising our children unnaturally and that attachment parenting is likely the healthiest way to rear a child, as is supported by many tribal communities of the world. But that is not our world and we have to try to find balance between the priorities of parenting and putting our children first with living in a society that does not put our children first. Or second or third. I agree that this needs to change about our society and I hope our children will have more knowledge and empowerment from a supportive society when they are raising our grandchildren.

i am so shocked by this article bc it's saying that I would consider sleep training bc I want to do my own thing and not tend to the baby. No. I want to consider sleep training because my 7 month old doesn't get enough sleep. He cries in my arms and on my breast and while I'm holding him - trying Ferber which isn't extinction method and having him not cry for hours at a time (in my arms) is actually LESS crying that he'd normally get.

This person is confusing Ferber method which uses some intermittent reassuring at timed intervals for about 4 days with gross neglect

Studies can be manipulated to serve the purposes of the organization funding the study. If you don't get the results you want, you keep repeating the study & altering the factors until you get the results you want.

The fact that cortisol is released in the brain when an animal is subjected to chronic stress does not translate to the same being true of minor stress. Children who are tired cry. To imagine that every time a child cries they should have intervention from the parent is to create a spoiled child. Imagine that being employed in a grocery store. If the only thing that will stop the crying is to give the child what he/she wants so his/her brain cells aren't killed off during those minutes of crying, is to create a monster-child. Please, let's have a little reason. This isn't science. This is the misuse of science.

There are "facts", and there are those "facts" that contradict other "facts". This is cherry-picking of the worst kind. The author has no understanding of behavior analysis, doesn't consider that body of knowledge, and slanders what she clearly does not understand, and those that do understand what she does not. There are a lot more "facts" to consider that contradict almost everything she says on this subject,

They are references. To scientific studies. This is not one person's opinion, this is fact based on scientific research. Justify CIO-methods all you like by questioning the parental status of the author, but facts are facts.

Thank you. Someone actually still knows what "research" and citations mean. Oh, woe is me if the internet is really a cross section of the intelligence of people today.

"My God if my baby never cried then I would think something was wrong."...EXACTLY the article's point that when a baby cries something IS wrong..and that giving a baby what it needs will prevent it from crying..and most today only think it's "normal" when a baby isn't getting what it needs first...SO THAT IT HAS NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO CRY...and you should read "it takes a village" by clinton....yes parents are people too and yes if you don't take care of yourself first then you can't take care of your baby...just like when you get on an airplane you're instructed to in an emergency put on your oxygen mask first THEN help the child sitting next to you...BUT the only reason it's impossible for most people to keep their baby from crying is because they are trying to raise their babies alone without the help of the "village"...so come down off your high horse and just ask for help...it will not only help you (listed you first because of your obvious selfishness from your post..."we don't stop having needs to sleep and eat and have relations with our peers either")but it will mostly benefit the baby. seeing how they can MEASURE the levels of stress hormones and know how it will effect us in adulthood. also think about this one..if you work how do you feel when no one listens to your needs or ideas or you ask your boss for a deserving raise but are ignored...how's that make YOU feel to be ignored...but u are an adult and not totally helpless also so obviously it's worse when you're totally helpless. you can get yourself a drink of water or at least have the ability to ask too....."If her smiles receive a response, but crying is ignored, she can receive the harmful message that she is loved and cared for only when she is happy. Children who continue to get this message through the years cannot feel truly loved and fully accepted."...."it is only when we fully accept ourselves and others, regardless of mistakes, that we can have truly loving relationships" ...."When a child learns by her parents' example that it is appropriate to ignore a child's cries, she will naturally treat her own child the same way, unless there is some intervention from others. Inadequate parenting continues through the generations until new experiences come about to change this pattern. How much easier it is for a parent to have learned in childhood how to treat his or her own child! Perhaps the cycle of inadequate parenting can begin to change when bystanders no longer walk past an anguished child without stopping to help. This may be the first time the child has been given the message that her feelings are legitimate and important, and this critical message may be remembered later when she herself has a child." a few lines from ...http://www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/crying.html.....p.s. what if it was written by a parent more knowledgeable...i bet their kids not cryin...don't you wish yours didn't just sayin

Ok, i only have one child, so no one to compare him to, but my son is well behaved in public, understands he doesn't always get the toy he wants, says "thank you", and is generally well mannered. He understands rules and that the world does NOT revolve around him The ONLY time he throws an absolute fit is when he is left alone. A 2 minute time out in his room is the best punishment we've ever come up with. He doesn't "cry it out" when left to settle himself, he screams until he pukes. He stresses SO badly from being left to settle himself, that he never settles, and it can take HOURS to soothe him enough that he settles again. If that means his daddy and I sit in with him, or snuggle him until he falls asleep, so be it. However, my son has spent nights away from us, gone to other states to spend the week with family, and is otherwise extremely independent. he just violently HATES being alone. I'm sure he'll outgrow the need to be cuddled at some point, but right now he's 2. I think this is one of those things that is best determined on a child by child basis by a well-informed parent. I have friends whose kids immediately settle and don't mind being left alone to sleep, but are extremely dependent on mommy and daddy during the waking hours.

Amen. Thank you for this validation. My son is 2, and had great naps until recently, where he has regressed and doesn't want to go down at all! I've felt so conflicted about letting him cry b/c others say he should be "old enough" to know better. I agree that it is "child by child" -- trusting our instincts above all others.

I work a daycare, specifically with babies - five days out of the week. One babe in particular will cry every morning at the same time UNTIL she is swaddled and laying in her crib. Once in the crib, she may cry for a minute or she may cry for five - OR, she may not cry at all. SHE IS CRYING BECAUSE SHE'S TIRED. NOT because she's wet or hungry. Some babes cry because they're tired (or past the point of falling asleep without a peep/are overtired) and it is MOST DEFINITELY acceptable to let the baby cry for five+ minutes until it falls asleep. Can I ask those of you a question that agree with this article? IF you have a baby and it is crying, what do you do? Does the baby not take a nap? Do you hold the babe until it falls asleep, showing it that it needs to fall asleep in your arms and not in their own crib, making it hard on those of us that may take care of your babe (along with multiple others) at daycare?

Babies cry when they're TIRED - that is what's "wrong". 10 times out of 10, when this baby (and all babes at the daycare, to be honest - unless they're sick) wakes up, it is in a much better mood, with no crying involved.

Fully agree -- I'd be very surprised if the author were a parent herself. Her scientific references tie "neglect" to phycho-social impact later in life, but the second link, equating "crying it out" to "neglect" is weak. "Crying it out" does not constitute neglect: it does not happen routinely (neglect is a pattern); crying it out occurs just a few times (1-5 times for 10-15 minutes until the baby learns to self-soothe(from experience, at our doctor's advice). Any experience parent will say that babies often cry when they have no needs -- when being held, having been fed, changed, etc. The author's adendum indicates she had a rocky childhood, and this article appears to draw from that experience rather than the neuro science she quotes.

Unfortunately, it has become a pervasive myth that it is normal for babies to cry a lot. No, it is not normal. It has come about because of the other pervasive idea that a baby should be trained early to become independent, by forcing them to be alone, and that it is OK to provide for physical needs, but emotional needs somehow don't matter or are non-existent. Normally, if a baby has all needs met, including the need to be physically and emotionally close, the baby will not cry much at all. If they do, it is a sign that something is seriously wrong and this is not normal.

Most animals leave their young completely unattended while they hunt. They do this because they care about the survival of their offspring - if they don't feed their cubs/babies, they'll starve as they are unable to look after themselves.

If we are going to compare animals to humans, let's not cherry-pick facts. If it's okay for animals to leave their young to their own devices in order to meet their needs, human parents need to be told this is ok too (within reason - I would never advocate leaving a baby or child on its own at home, for example). My baby loves to be held and cuddled, and I give him what attention I can. But I also have a 5yr old and 3 yr old. They matter to me too. And they need dinner, clean clothes, my guidance, and the occasional cuddle and book read to them. This means bub sometimes has to lay in the play gym or the rocker and amuse himself. He may not like it, his desire might be to be held but his needs are met.

Umm just to reply about your comment regarding nature and animals raising their young, Is that really a good comparison? Some animals eat their young.. You may want to watch more of the discovery channel.

That sounds like a very excellent argument. However, did you not consider that the author holds a PhD in Psychology? What are your qualifications? Watching the Discovery Channel?

Comparing animals that eat their young? Really, that is not a very good comparison to the nature of the human condition, is it? They wouldn't have to eat their young if it weren't for harsh environmental conditions, would they? Or, did you even consider the logic of your statement? How would the adult come to be an adult, much less, have children, if they "eat their young" as a general practice?

Ok. I wasted too much time responding to someone that probably can't even comprehend half of what I'm saying.

All animals and humans are different and in some ways many are very similar. For instance many animals are not going to tend their baby for every single cry. A mother can tell the difference between cries. You will know if there is a time to let your child self soothe. I never had any problems with my five year old in this area nor has my family and we are not the type of people that pick up the baby on every need. If a baby is fed, clean, feeling well once they get to a certain age they will start to cry just to be entertained or held which is often short lived and personally for myself and others I know this is around bedtime and naptime. My daughter rarely cried during these times. Sometimes after she was mobile she would fuss a bit before bed but that does not mean I go and pick her up and entertain her, it is bed time, she is tired. And even if she fussed a bit (rarely) she would shortly thereafter fall asleep. Now lets go after the year mark. If you are picking up your child for every little thing and not letting them self soothe when it is time for bed you are going to have a handful of a needy toddler on your hands. You child will learn to whine or cry every time they don't want to go to bed, or a toy is taken away, etc... Letting them cry or whine it out is part of common sense, natural parenting. If you have the urge to pick up your child and sooth them for every single cry you are probably not very much in touch with you paternal instincts. For instance I have a friend who has a three year old who is absolutely terrible because she picked him up and nursed him for EVERYTHING. No discipline. Children are capable of far more than we can imagine. As for letting a new born cry it out, that is stupid. People do not understand this concept at all sometimes. It's part of parenting. Children need to learn no, learn to self cope. You should know if they are crying for a legitimate reason or if it's a time for comfort or if it's a time to talk, whatever... COMMON SENSE. NATURAL MATERNAL INSTICT! And it's pathetic that you have a five year old that can't go to sleep on his own. PISS POOR parenting.

Also note when you are letting an older child cry it out or self soothe it's not just a shut the door and go thing. You communicate with your children so they can understand why they are in trouble or why they have to take a nap, etc... So you're not just leaving them in the dark. And if your child is that dependent even at two, you need to really take a look at your child's environment and your parenting. Promoting weak, uneducated children is disgusting. Never had a problem!

By saying that a child is only allowed in your presence if the exhibit only certain emotions/behaviors teaches children that A) your love is conditional B)the big uncomfortable feelings that they are experiencing are bad and they should feel shame over them C)you only love them when they exude certain behaviors D)Those big feelings (Anger/Frustration/Anxiety) are developmental milestones that you are not interested in helping them navigate through in a healthy way.

Please stop bullying other parents. I sleep trained my child for the good of both of us. I LOVE MY CHILD. He isn't an inconvenience and I would do anything and everything for him. I couldn't handle him waking up every 2 hours because it was bad for the BOTH of us. I tried the no-cry method for months and co-slept with him the entire time and he still got up EVERY 2 hours. My husband urged a gentle CIO at 9mo when I was beside myself with exhaustion. He slept for 7 hours STRAIGHT the very first night. And guess what? His mood instantly changed the very next day. He was no longer a "cranky" baby and he was as happy as can be. The next night he didn't even cry when we put him down for bedtime. He is a happier child and I am a well-rested and more engaged mother because of this. That is all of the science I need. Do I sound defensive? Yup. I love being told that I am a bad mother for wanting what is best for MY family. Keep brow beating mothers by telling them they're selfish for wanting some rest.Y'all can continue to be haters, not helping your cause because you come off as self-righteous bullies. Such a nice quality to pass on to your children....

I agree with both of you. This article does not define "neglect". Is it letting your child cry for 5 min? 10 min? 3 hours? I believe there are often very good reasons to let your child cry it out and I agree with you that if their basic needs are met, the child will be fine.

Just stop and think for a moment about what you are saying -- in the phrase "cry it out," what exactly is "it"? Even if it's "just" his need for security and closeness to his parents, THAT IS A BASIC NEED. Babies cry to communicate their needs, because they cannot talk. How do you KNOW your baby isn't hungry, wet, cold, lonely, scared, etc? As far as defining how long it's okay to let a baby cry, we do not need a definition if we are following our instincts and parenting with the goal of meeting our babies' needs as much as possible. This article is in reaction to a society full of "experts" and parents who believe and preach not only the option but the "necessity" of leaving TINY babies, newborns even, to cry themselves to sleep.

Ironically, many babies suffer from sleep deprivation because they are hauled out at every time of day and prevented from napping on their own biological rhythms because the parents view the baby as an accessory or can't be "inconvenienced" by staying home to let the baby nap. Yet when the baby has sleep problems due to the parents' inconsideration, he's left alone to cry himself to sleep.

What if "it" is just difficulty self-soothing, and not a need for security and closeness?

I have my own modified CIO method, because I could not stand for my kids to feel like I was not there for them. When I felt they were ready (depending on size, development - anywhere from 6 weeks to 6 months) I would only pat and shush them to sleep while they were lying down - singing, stroking the cheek, stopping every 10 minutes to try feeding/changing and for a snuggle. But I would not let them go to sleep while I was holding them, bouncing them, or with the pacifier. They cried and cried for the first few days, but then got used to self-soothing.

It was very painful for me, I felt so sorry for them - but I also felt like it encouraged good sleep habits. And I didn't feel like they felt unloved, just "unhappy" because they were very sleepy and couldn't figure out how to go to sleep. So crying "it" out meant crying out the inability to go to sleep on their own.

I have terrible sleep habits, I can't go to sleep easily at all. All of my children go to sleep SO easily. I don't know if it is because of my method, or because they take after my husband.

I just can't believe that 2-3 nights of crying themselves to sleep, while being comforted, could affect their well-being long-term.

self-soothing - a term used by parents who can't be bothered to do their job. You did not teach them how to sleep you forced your children to realize you do not care, you will not come for them, they cannnot trust you and they evenually GAVE UP on you - something that will stick with them FOREVER. I'm glad you feel bad, you should. All of you defending this method should. You are not talking about 5 minutes or 10 minutes but full on "exhaust yourself by crying and I'm going to ignore you because it suits me". You mothers are lazy, self-concerned and obviously choosing to ignore the damage you have done to your children for your own convenience. Ya, ya, "they're fine", "they're independent" blah blah. I don't buy it - I guarantee those children have a lesser start in life and YOU are to blame. How do you know what kind of person that child would be if you chose to do what you signed up for and actually took care of that child - even if you wanted sleep, even if you believed raising a child would be easy - you should have known what was best without being told. Shame on all of you!!!!! My son, as a baby, was NEVER left to wonder why we decided not to help him, why we left him all by himself, never left to cry by himself - frankly I don't know how cold your hearts are to be able to do that. FYI he is now 3, is the best sleeper ever and has been sleeping through the night since he was younger than 6 months, even naps like a champ still. He is independent, smart, brave, strong and knows we love him. He has never thrown a temper tantrum, is not spoiled and is the most confident 3 year old. He is not clingy, is not a 'mama's boy' and is the most social child you would want to meet. I don't even want to think how different he would be if we had decided to be selfish and ignore him as so many of you are defending. My son is living proof - believe this article or not. I see so many of my 'friends' children, those who are lazy like you women, and you can see the difference almost immediately - these are the children with learning issues, behavioural disorders, ADD, ADHD, etc....again, living proof. "self-soothe" - what a line of crap. GET OFF YOUR ASSES AND TAKE CARE OF YOUR BABIES!!!!

See, I think you people who co-sleep and baby led ween are lazy and weak.

My mother let me sleep with her until I was 10! You know what that got me? The inability to sleep alone or sleep in the dark. I sleep with the TV on. I jump up out of a deep sleep in a panic if it's too quiet.

The lazy parents are the ones who want their kid right beside them so they don't even have to wake them up to slap them on a boob. They can't be bothered to put their kid on a schedule or have them cry for 5 minutes to learn a little independence. Talk about lazy asses.

Right on. I slept with my parents until I was 16. Yes, you heard that right. I was scared to sleep alone. I felt if they weren't confident enough in leaving me alone, something must be wrong with me being alone. When you challenge your kids a bit more, you show confidence in them being able to take on something new.

Everyone that I know that has co slept with their parents have, with their parents gentle guidance, successfully made the transition from parents bed to own. Perhaps your parents didn't handle it very well. But to anyone who thinks there is no middle ground, I assure you there is. I co sleep with my baby but he won't be there in 15.5 years time. I guarantee it. My other, three year old son is perfectly happy sleeping in his own bed after co-sleeping.
Don't make assumptions based on your own experience. You are not my child and I am not your parent. My children will not be you. Some understanding and an ability to consider the opposite or unknown will go a long way for some people.